Ok all partisanship aside and assuming for a moment that Bettman wants something other than crushing the PA.

Whats the deal with the sliding scale on HRR, previous offers have varied in the players percentage of HRR. Essentially the players could have had a higher percentage of a lower amount of HRR or a lower percentage of a higher amount of HRR- both of which amounted to less than a 50/ 50 split.

So now they are offering 50/50 based on which number? I'm thinking the PA's response should indicate whether its a genuine offer to split the pie or if its more of the same "equal slices but my slice is bigger" bullshit in order to win the PR battle while the union busting continues...?

Yeah, feeling a little like Charlie Brown and these negotiations are Lucy with the football...I want to run up and give it a good kick but something still tells me it'll be yanked away at the last minute. Hope I'm wrong, but I'm feeling very cautious about today's optimism, even of the cautious sort.

I really think that the owners and players are finally coming to the conclusion that the fans are becoming apathetic, which is the worst thing that could happen to both sides.They could have settled this thing a long time ago if they would have realized how badly they are damaging this sport.

ukcanuck wrote:I'm thinking the PA's response should indicate whether its a genuine offer to split the pie or if its more of the same "equal slices but my slice is bigger" bullshit in order to win the PR battle while the union busting continues...?

LOL

So you are going to let the PA's response dictate how you feel about the leagues offer....

Wow just wow....

Anyway this does feel like the first serious offer from either side, if the PA makes a real counter then we should see a deal soon. If the PA comes back with their same 3 year "unlinked" crap then things will get ugly again.

50/50 was always the goal. This is no surprise. What is a surprise is no change to the HRR formula. I think the PA should be happy with this. Term limits, I am OK with but I think it should be that contract terms cannot exceed the CBA term. Puts pressure on both sides to do a long deal and renegotiate any future deals.

The biggest stumbling block will be salary roll backs or cap roll backs and how that gets managed or grandfathered in. This is where they need to do work. They could leave it as is but it means higher escrow which I am fine with but the players will not be happy with.

I would also eliminate signing bonuses and like to see an even out of cap/salary by year somehow.

How serious the PA is in a new deal will show itself with their counter proposal. I think if they accept the essence of the offer but offer up some constructive tweaks and current contract protections we will be closer to a deal. But if they still offer up apples to oranges then we will not see an 82 game schedule.

Extending UFA length by a year. Nobody will be happy, but it isn't unreasonable and protects teams draft interests. Fair deal.

5 year maximum contract length. I think this is also fair if players are guaranteed their money regardless of player performance, effort, attitude etc. They can't be fired, they can be demoted, but they still get paid.....owners have to have some protection on their payroll investments and fans obviously hate it when a player is a waste of cap space due to flash in the pan performance or players who only perform in "contract years". Either that or change the buyout option in the new CBA so that players can be bought out with no cap hit remaining against the team in subsequent years. Regardless, I prefer the 5 year maximum as it is long enough for a team to start building and for players to begin to gauge whether or not they are on board with the direction of the team but also short enough that players who prefer to sign big, then mail it in for 75% of their next contract, well, they are quickly weeded out. It's a propsal that will benefit the game and is fair for the owners.....and if a player is making 7 figures to play a game, well any 7 figure deal over 5 years is nothing to sneeze at.

Structuring the deal to allow for currently signed players to receive all the money they have been promised. Fair deal. Kudos to the owners for going this route and being willing to honor their financial contracts.

I also like that they are allowing for a maximum cap of $70M for next year. I still would prefer it if there were some sort of guarantees that allowed for contracts that are going to be over the new league maximum to be grandfathered in and simply counted as the league max while the players still received their money until the existing player contract expired.

If the PA doesn't except this proposal, or at least the major points of it, they will pretty much be killing themselves in the spotlight of public opinion.

Meds wrote:Structuring the deal to allow for currently signed players to receive all the money they have been promised. Fair deal. Kudos to the owners for going this route and being willing to honor their financial contracts.

Seriously ?? kudos for living up to their word? Where I come from you are expected to be as good as your word...anything less is pathetic

Meds wrote:Structuring the deal to allow for currently signed players to receive all the money they have been promised. Fair deal. Kudos to the owners for going this route and being willing to honor their financial contracts.

Seriously ?? kudos for living up to their word? Where I come from you are expected to be as good as your word...anything less is pathetic

Exactly. And to this point my only problem with what the owners were doing was asking players to give back the money they had negotiated in good faith. They were in a position to simply keep the players locked out, and to date most people were saying that the owners have more money (which they do) and could likely win this in a simple war of attrition (which they could). You can give your word and be a complete douche and go back on it, they were doing that, but then righted their wayward course and are doing what they are supposed to do.

I guess we should never get out of our seats for Schneider when he makes an incredible save.....because he's supposed to do that. We should have thrown him under the bus for that save on Morrison against Chicago last season after he screwed up, turned the puck over, and then dove back in front of the net and stayed with the puck and got an arm up. He was supposed to do that, he wasn't supposed to turn the puck over though.

Your comment lacks any kind of rational basis. I'm starting to see why so many people around here argue with you.....you go off half-cocked.

Meds wrote:Structuring the deal to allow for currently signed players to receive all the money they have been promised. Fair deal. Kudos to the owners for going this route and being willing to honor their financial contracts.

Seriously ?? kudos for living up to their word? Where I come from you are expected to be as good as your word...anything less is pathetic

Exactly. And to this point my only problem with what the owners were doing was asking players to give back the money they had negotiated in good faith. They were in a position to simply keep the players locked out, and to date most people were saying that the owners have more money (which they do) and could likely win this in a simple war of attrition (which they could). You can give your word and be a complete douche and go back on it, they were doing that, but then righted their wayward course and are doing what they are supposed to do.

I guess we should never get out of our seats for Schneider when he makes an incredible save.....because he's supposed to do that. We should have thrown him under the bus for that save on Morrison against Chicago last season after he screwed up, turned the puck over, and then dove back in front of the net and stayed with the puck and got an arm up. He was supposed to do that, he wasn't supposed to turn the puck over though.

Your comment lacks any kind of rational basis. I'm starting to see why so many people around here argue with you.....you go off half-cocked.

Half cocked? no fully cocked and I know where it is too, I haven't changed my tune since day one, the owners have not one ounce of my respect precisely because they betray the basic principle that a deal is a deal. Its a basic tenet of the very foundation of the system that allows them the privilege they sit their fat asses on. big fucking deal they are gonna let the players keep the money they agreed to pay them in the first place...thats a classic case of a "reach around" as I have ever heard. Whatever- if they can work out a deal it wont be because Bettman is nice guy or the owners suddenly got magnanimous, it'll be because the owners have as much to lose as the players and they finally realise that the worm is turning.

Either that or little Hitler there Gary Bettman is a virtuoso and Fehr, the players, the media, the ticket holders, the fans, you, me and anyone else who ever gave a tinkers fart for hockey are collectively his piano and we've all been played masterfully in his grand designs

Meds wrote:Structuring the deal to allow for currently signed players to receive all the money they have been promised. Fair deal. Kudos to the owners for going this route and being willing to honor their financial contracts.

Seriously ?? kudos for living up to their word? Where I come from you are expected to be as good as your word...anything less is pathetic

hmmm if you are from the UK.. Did you ever wonder why there are no Austins, Morrises, Humbers etc.. When times go tough in the UK auto industry the "owners" wanted a roll back to stave off bankruptcy.. the union asked for more money.. Bingo.. no auto industry in UK.. broke owners and unemployed auto workers.. Except for the ones working for foreign ownership . Get down on your knees and thank God for Maggie Thatcher breaking a few union heads and there are still some jobs left in the UK.. Right now its the same story in the USA for hockey owners and players., time to renogotiate contracts that were made in good faith ..

Meds wrote:Structuring the deal to allow for currently signed players to receive all the money they have been promised. Fair deal. Kudos to the owners for going this route and being willing to honor their financial contracts.

Seriously ?? kudos for living up to their word? Where I come from you are expected to be as good as your word...anything less is pathetic

hmmm if you are from the UK.. Did you ever wonder why there are no Austins, Morrises, Humbers etc.. When times go tough in the UK auto industry the "owners" wanted a roll back to stave off bankruptcy.. the union asked for more money.. Bingo.. no auto industry in UK.. broke owners and unemployed auto workers.. Except for the ones working for foreign ownership . Get down on your knees and thank God for Maggie Thatcher breaking a few union heads and there are still some jobs left in the UK.. Right now its the same story in the USA for hockey owners and players., time to renogotiate contracts that were made in good faith ..

Actually thats a very apt point against the NHL owners, you see the UK auto industry is still there, they build almost as many cars as the always have and the industry is still part of the backbone of British industry. Its just that the morons in charge in the 70's and 80's blundered so badly that the industry is now 95 percent foreign owned... The moral of the story for the NHL? The workers are still there its the owners who have gone..

ukcanuck wrote:Half cocked? no fully cocked and I know where it is too, I haven't changed my tune since day one, the owners have not one ounce of my respect precisely because they betray the basic principle that a deal is a deal. Its a basic tenet of the very foundation of the system that allows them the privilege they sit their fat asses on. big fucking deal they are gonna let the players keep the money they agreed to pay them in the first place...thats a classic case of a "reach around" as I have ever heard. Whatever- if they can work out a deal it wont be because Bettman is nice guy or the owners suddenly got magnanimous, it'll be because the owners have as much to lose as the players and they finally realise that the worm is turning.

Either that or little Hitler there Gary Bettman is a virtuoso and Fehr, the players, the media, the ticket holders, the fans, you, me and anyone else who ever gave a tinkers fart for hockey are collectively his piano and we've all been played masterfully in his grand designs

OK, so they have none of your respect because they betray the principle that a deal is a deal.....and yet if they are going to honor the financial committment to their players who are currently under contract then they are doing exactly what they said they would do in that regard. The old deal, the expired CBA, is no longer a deal. It was negotiated in 2005 and set to completely expire in 2012. There is no deal in place. The only place that the owners were trying to back out of a deal was when they were asking for existing contracts to be rolled back by 24%. Beyond that there is nothing in place that they said they would do but are now trying to renege on. So if they are doing it then they have changed their tune and are turning around and honoring it, kudos to them for that, they have taken the first step in trying to bridge the gap between the two sides, and it is actually quite a big step that they have taken.

I also think you should read over your posts before you click submit. They are a little hard to really make sense of.

ukcanuck wrote:... the owners have not one ounce of my respect precisely because they betray the basic principle that a deal is a deal. Its a basic tenet of the very foundation of the system that allows them the privilege they sit their fat asses on.

So a deal is a deal is the basic doctrine that sets up the system that gives the owners a privilege of some sort? WTF are you talking about?

Tiger wrote:hmmm if you are from the UK.. Did you ever wonder why there are no Austins, Morrises, Humbers etc.. When times go tough in the UK auto industry the "owners" wanted a roll back to stave off bankruptcy.. the union asked for more money.. Bingo.. no auto industry in UK.. broke owners and unemployed auto workers.. Except for the ones working for foreign ownership . Get down on your knees and thank God for Maggie Thatcher breaking a few union heads and there are still some jobs left in the UK.. Right now its the same story in the USA for hockey owners and players., time to renogotiate contracts that were made in good faith ..

Actually thats a very apt point against the NHL owners, you see the UK auto industry is still there, they build almost as many cars as the always have and the industry is still part of the backbone of British industry. Its just that the morons in charge in the 70's and 80's blundered so badly that the industry is now 95 percent foreign owned... The moral of the story for the NHL? The workers are still there its the owners who have gone..

And the financial state of the country is what?

If anything I would hope that North America would have learned the price of selling out to foreign investors. It's a shot at the employee who wants more now at the expense of the overall whole (not just his own industry). How many jobs were lost and people had to go, and are still going, through some seriously tough financial times because the union forced the employer to pay more to the worker and then the employer says, "See ya later, you're laid off." or, "I'm selling you to the Chinese, negotiate with those Commie bastards if you can."

ukcanuck wrote:Actually thats a very apt point against the NHL owners, you see the UK auto industry is still there, they build almost as many cars as the always have and the industry is still part of the backbone of British industry. Its just that the morons in charge in the 70's and 80's blundered so badly that the industry is now 95 percent foreign owned... The moral of the story for the NHL? The workers are still there its the owners who have gone..

The part you miss is the foriegn auto industry in UK is non union bud, that's gotta hurt. They still get the same money but say good buy to the restrictive practises = success